Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 327 F.2d 967 - Vuin v. Burton

Vuin v. Burton’s Empirical Analysis

327 F.2d 967 · 1964

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
December 1990
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 1990 · most notably Hunsucker v. Phinney (1974), Lucia v. United States (1973)

23 federal appellate · 2 district ·

1601964197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Elkins v. United States · Helvering v. Taylor · Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co. · Flora v. United States · Rios v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The manifest purpose of § 7421 (a) is to permit the United States to assess and collect taxes alleged to be due without judicial intervention, and to require that the legal right to the disputed sums be determined in a suit for refund. In this manner the United States is assured of prompt collection of its lawful revenue. Nevertheless, if it is clear that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail, the central purpose of the Act is inapplicable and * * * the attempted collection may be enjoined if equity jurisdiction otherwise exists. * * *. “We believe that the question of whether the Government has a chance of ultimately prevailing is to be determined on the basis of the information available to it at the time of suit. Only if it is then apparent that, under the most liberal view of the law and the facts, the United States cannot establish its claim, may the suit for an injunction be maintained. Otherwise, the District Court is without jurisdiction, and the complaint must be dismissed.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The right of the United States to collect its internal revenue by summary administrative proceedings has long been settled. Where, as here, adequate opportunity is afforded for a later judicial determination of the legal rights, summary proceedings to secure prompt performance of pecuniary obligations to the government have been consistently sustained. * * * Property rights must yield provisionally to governmental need. Thus, while protection of life and liberty from administrative action alleged to be illegal may be obtained promptly by the writ of habeas corpus, * * * the statutory prohibition of any ‘suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax’ postpones redress for the alleged invasion of property rights if the exaction is made under color of their offices by revenue officers charged with the general authority to assess and collect the revenue. * * * “Where only property rights are involved, mere postponement of the judicial enquiry is not a denial of due process, if the opportunity given for the ultimate judicial determination of the liability is adequate.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]n injunction may be obtained against the collection of any tax if (1) it is “clear that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail” and (2) “equity jurisdiction” otherwise exists, i.e., the taxpayer shows that he would otherwise suffer irreparable injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.